Science is Simple

Dear Fundamentalist Religious People,

When it comes to science, you have a really simple choice to make.

Either science and math show us God's simple, elegant plan for the universe.

Or it is a deception.

If it is a deception, then it is the Devil's work and you'd best not fly on a plane, use a cell phone, balance your checkbook, make babies, or do anything at all. Because all of those things use simple, explainable, consistent science and math.

If you make use of science in any way, even by say, breathing, you are participating in the Devil's deceptive and diabolical plan.

But the more logical view, if you simply must believe in a deity, is that science shows us the beautiful, elegant, simple, self sustaining plan for the universe that only a wise and intelligent God would come up with.

Laws of nature that keep everything stable and running smoothly.

Math that is repeatable and consistent and practical.

Think about it. A smart God would devise a parsimonious universe that can sustain itself. A smart God does not want to do a lot of meddling or maintenance. Set it in motion and see what happens.

What kind of a system takes care of itself? The natural cosmos does.

DNA is one of many smoking guns that confirm how science shows us God's plan. DNA (and the related RNA) controls all life on earth and it's propagation. There are no exceptions to be found. If it lacks DNA/RNA, it is not a living thing. Consistently.

So clearly, God figured out that DNA, and by association evolution by natural selection, is a great molecule for creating life that is adaptable and self-sustaining.

This is not debatable, except to argue that it is a deception (once again, the Devil's work). All life is based on DNA, including human life. Whether you believe in evolution, this is irrefutable fact. So if DNA is the Devil's work, then YOU are the Devil's work. The Lord demands that you exterminate yourself.

But a better idea is to accept that a smart God would base life on a self replicating molecule that adapts itself to the world in which it exists, just as evolution by natural selection consistently illustrates.

There is just no way around it. Either science elucidates God's plan, as Isaac Newton believed, or it is a deception of the Devil. Decide for yourself.

But if you conclude that science and math are the path to examining God's plan for the universe, then you have to logically accept that science and nature are Godly and its components are all part of God's plan.

Thus, scientists are God's prophets, to be respected and worshipped.

Sadly, this also means, the Bible cannot be divine. It is inconsistent with science and thus with God's plan.

So, you decide. But it is black and white. There is no gray area. Science either shows us God's plan for nature and the cosmos or it does not (deception). If it is a deception, it is the Devil's work because it cannot lead to truth. In that case, the Bible can be true, but you by definition are the Devil's work.

I do not envy you this decision. You could just ignore the question. But that does not change the reality of the situation.

Wholesome Goodness

A while ago, I dated a girl who would probably fit the definition of fundamentalist Christian. She was one of the nicest goodest people I ever met and was a super positive influence on my life. She continues to be, in fact, which is a matter of some consternation to me. Even though we are no longer together, I find myself holding other people to the high standard of wholesome goodness that she set, and few can achieve it. But that's OK. All that matters is that I achieve it, and I am not trying to change anyone else.

So that's the long of the short of it. But today I was reflecting on the positive influence this woman had on my life, and it still confuses me that she always viewed herself as a bad person at heart, a sinner. Like, you literally could not be less of a sinner than this girl. But she was convinced that no matter how good her actions and deeds in life, she was always letting Jesus down and thus a sinner.

I never could relate to that and perhaps that's why we are no longer dating. It's a shame, but not a sin. The end result is that her striving to be as good a person as JC, even though she was, by Biblical definition, failing utterly (the logic goes something like: Jesus is infinitely good. No mortal can ever be infinitely good. The best we can do is accept that Jesus died for our inferior imperfections), it rubbed off on me and made me a significantly better person than I was.

So while she was experiencing the Law of Diminishing Returns in her quest to asymptotically inch closer to the divine standard, and suffering for it mentally, I would say that I probably doubled or tripled my wholesome goodness quotient as a result of her.

That's cool in an objective sense, but kind of sad in that she's the Christian! She's the one who is supposed to feel good about having JC in her life as a guidepost. I am still a total atheist, but now I am 10 times better and happier because of HER devotion to Christ.

Man, this world is not fair.

Evidence of Evolution - Darwin's Theory of Evolution

There is little hope of convincing Creationists that Darwin's Theory of Evolution is right and they are totally wrong. So let's forget about them for a minute.

There are surely a lot of people out there who are not fundamentally religious and just want to understand Darwin's Theory and the mountains of evidence for evolution that exist. Not everyone is a scientist, but many people are curious about science and seek truth.

As with global climate change, it is hard to get correct and rational information when there is so much misinformation flying around from people who are willfully ignorant, or more diabolically want to deceive (mostly hardcore church people have a vested interest in deception against evolution, because their livelihood depends on people rejecting Darwin's theory and the evolution timeline of billions of years, in favor of the patently false Biblical creation story and it's absurdly short timeline).

The best and brightest book for lay people about evolution by natural selection is Richard Dawkins' "The Greatest Show On Earth."

In it, Dawkins explains it all in very easy to understand words, and he destroys all religious rebukes and rebuttals easily (it's not hard to disprove falsehoods). It's by far the best and clearest overview of evolution by natural selection in general. If you are an evolution skeptic before reading this book, you will have no doubt that the theory of evolution is real and correct afterwards. So if you are a fundamentalist religious person and want to keep your head firmly in the sand, DO NOT read this book. Conversely, if you are secure in your faith, you have nothing to fear from reading this book and might learn something (CAUTION: It's the Devil's work, ha ha ha!). Everyone else can read it knowing they will be well informed and even entertained.


If you want to learn about the timeline of evolution on earth, I must once again refer you to Dawkins. His book, "The Ancestor's Tale," illustrates the evolution timeline beautifully, by working backwards from the humans of the present to the first lifeforms on earth.

Interestingly, on the tree of life, there are only about 40 branch points between us and the first microbes. This is actually mathematically verifiable, although it seems counterintuitive. You can take any two life forms on earth today and if you go back far enough, they will share a common ancestor. Consider that our most recent branch point is shared with chimpanzees, considerably different from us. Nothing has branched off from the human line since the ancestor of chimps did, although chimps subsequently split into several species. But we don't count the chimp branch points on our line because our ancestors had already split off by then.

One thing that even non-religious people don't get is that humans did not evolve from chimps. Both chimps and humans evolved from a common ancestor who was partly chimp-like and partly human-like (we'd probably say it was more chimp-like, and chimps would probably say it was more human-like). As soon as the two species split off, the ancestral species ceased to exist. One group gradually evolved over time into chimps and the other gradually evolved over time into humans. The ancestral species lived on the earth up until the time of the branching of the two species, but it does not exist today, except in the fossil record.


Dawkins also has a book called "The Blind Watchmaker," about the biological mechanics of evolution. Here he explains how animals evolve through incremental changes over long periods of time and how complex organs like eyes can develop. Critics of evolution argue that something as complex as an eye could not evolve incrementally because there is no such thing as a partially formed eye in nature.

"Hogwash!" says Dawkins (he probably doesn't say that really). Nature is full of examples of partially formed eyes, from simple light sensitive cells in worms, to compound eyes in insects, to pinhole camera style eyes in other organisms. In fact, the human eye, he points out, is designed horribly (unintelligent design, from an engineering standpoint), back to front, but still performs amply well for our needs. The squid has an even better eye than we do.

Another mistake the anti-evolutionists make is to suggest that evolution can't be true because otherwise there would be intermediate species in the fossil record. They say this as if they are fully confident there are no intermediate species in the fossil record. The only problem is that the fossil record is rich with intermediate species, especially younger fossils like the putative common ancestors of humans and chimps. Dawkins exposes this Creationist fallacy in "The Greatest Show On Earth" as well.


For the more advanced students of the science of evolution, have a look at "The Extended Phenotype," by Dawkins. This is a more technical text, akin to a college level textbook, which Dawkins disclaims right away in the foreward, so no one can call him out on that. This book is not the best choice for a first encounter with Dawkins' writing, unless you are technically savvy and well versed in the biological jargon of genetics and evolution by natural selection. Even then it can be a decent sedative. Definitely read one of the books above, or perhaps his seminal work, "The Selfish Gene (even my scientifically timid mom enjoyed that one)," if you want to ease into the writing of Dawkins. "The Extended Phenotype" is more of a plunge into deep, exotic waters.

Comments or questions are welcomed.